"Letting Go of God" - Page 5

Originally posted by dmzBuddhism destroys particularity by definition.

If you don't know what you're talking about, just admit it. Otherwise you're just removing all doubt in us of your incorrect knowledge on the subject. It's fine to not know. Just ask.

Quote:

Suchness which in its absolute sense means the total system of the abstractly formal laws, including the moral order of the universe, is contrasted with the realm of Birth and Death. This realm of Birth and Death, is the material world of concrete objects. While Suchness is the domain of the universal, the realm of Birth and Death is the domain of the particular; and it is characteristic of the Mahayana school that the bodily, the particular, the concrete is not rejected as a state of sin, but only characterised as impure or defiled, imperfect, and implicated with sorrow and pain, on account of its limitedness and the illusions which naturally attach to it.

Suchness and the realm of Birth and Death are not two hostile empires but two names of the same thing. There is but one world with two aspects describing two opposed phases of one and the same existence. These two aspects form a contrast, not a contradiction. Suchness (or the good law, the normative factor) dominates the realm of Birth and Death, which latter therefore, in a certain sense, belongs to Suchness throughout in its entirety as well as in its details.

But sentient beings [or not-so sentient! -johnq] are apt to overlook the significance of the universal, for the senses depict only the particular. Thus to a superficial consideration of sensual beings, the world presents itself as a conglomeration of isolated objects and beings, and the unity that consists in the oneness of law which dominates all, is lost sight of. It is the mind (or spiritual insight into the nature of things) which traces the unity of being and learns to appreciate the significance of the universal.

Universals, i.e., those factors which constitute the suchness of things are not substances, not entities, but relations, pure forms, or determinants, i.e., general laws. Thus they are not things, but ideas; and the most important one among them, the suchness of man or his soul, is not a concrete self, an âtman, but "name and form."

It is well known what an important role the denial of the existence of the âtman plays in the Abhidharma, and we need not repeat here that it is the least understood and most misrepresented doctrine of Buddhism.

Thus the essential feature of existence, of that which presents itself to the senses, is not the material, but the formal; not that which makes it concrete and particular, but that which constitutes its nature and applies generally; not that which happens to be here, so that it is this, but that which makes it to be thus; not its Thisness, but its Suchness.

Particularity is not denounced as evil, but it is set forth as limited; and we might add (an idea which is not expressed in the Mahâyâna, but implied) that the universal would be unmeaning if it were not realised in the particular.
Absolute Suchness without reference to the world of concrete Particularity is like a Pratyekabuddha, and the Pratyekabuddha, a sage whose wisdom does not go out into the world to seek and to save, is regarded an inferior to the Bodhisattvas, who with inferior knowledge combine a greater love and do practical work that is of help to their fellow beings.

How highly Particularity is considered appears from the Mahayana picture in which it stands contrasted to Universality on perfectly equal terms.

Originally posted by dmzThe apparent failure of Buddhism to connect with the demands of reality are there for anyone to see. And yes, I'm sorry, Buddhism was founded by a guy who wouldn't deal with reality and decided that suffering was to good for God to allow -- and ran to self-pity as and ideological resource. Apparently this in not a leap of faith adherents aren't willing to make. Fine, to each his own.

Your ignorance (in the non-pejorative/literal sense) of this is bordering on the intentional.

There is no failure of Buddhism. It is a robust and lively philosophy, one that is appreciate worldwide and mixes well with modern society as well as developing ones and is having fascinating developments regarding it's compatibility with the advanced sciences. It is empowering and cleansing. It is not a pyramid scheme or a lottery like how other religions treat the this life or the afterlife. You don't throw away this life for the promise of a better afterlife. You make this one better out of compassion for all. (Oh how evil and selfish!!)

The Buddha FOUND reality, he didn't flee from it, he ran TO it. He DENOUNCED self-pity or self-mortification (as well as the opposites) as being unbeneficial.

Can your misconceptions of Buddhism be any more complete? Do tell...

Quote:

Originally posted by dmzDoes this mean that Buddists are "BRAINWASHED"?? Evil? Tools?

If I tell a room full of people to think for themselves, use their mind and senses to make their own conclusions - SHOCK!, is that brainwashing?

But this is free thinking?

Quote:

JOEL OSTEEN/(audience)

This is my bible. (This is my bible.) I am what it says I am. (I am what it says I am.) I have what it says I have. (I have what it says I have.) I can do what it says I can do. (I can do what it says I can do.) Today I will be taught the Word of God. (Today I will be taught the Word of God.) I boldly confess. (I boldly confess.) My mind is alert. (My mind is alert.) My heart is receptive. (My heart is receptive.) I will never be the same. (I will never be the same.) I am about to receive (I am about to receive) the incorruptible, (the incorruptible,) indestructible (indestructible) ever-living (ever-living) seed (seed) of the Word of God. (of the Word of God.) I will never be the same. (I will never be the same.) Never. Never. Never. (Never. Never. Never.) I'll never be the same. (I'll never be the same.) In Jesus' name. (In Jesus' name.)

Originally posted by dmzNo, it means they are wrong. Not Idiots, not evil robots, just wrong.

Are the blind or deaf wrong too? Their perception of reality is different than yours and mine. Do they get a free ticket to Hell too? SInce the senses all work on a delay, only introspection and awareness of the fundamental illusion of phenomena can we glimpse the reality behind our cloud of delayed, flawed, limited sensory input.

Satan, to me, is non-Nirvana. The ignorance that is all around us right now by our believing appearances to be utterly true, reliable and permanent.

A follower of Jesus should know this. Buddhism is everything Jesus said (but with the benefit of not having been shoe-horned into contradictory, pre-existing Roman/Judaic/Greek traditions). Unfortunately there are movements and interpretations of Jesus today that are actively changing His teachings to be exclusive, divisive, delusional and hostile to surrounding beliefs.

It is this perversion of the Jesus teachings (whether real, partially fictional or entirely mythic) that I complain about. And I'll spare no amount of scorn for those that corrupt it or any other religion for inappropriate ends.

Quote:

Originally posted by dmzWhich is the crucial difference here: I'll tell you that you're wrong, but I get a computer screen full of narrow invective. I can tell you why your wrong, but I suspiciously only get the mantra that I'm (besides when I'm called stupid or unread) vain and judgemental.

Again, trying to make things personal and trying to be the victim so as to get the thread locked while you're behind in answering our questions. Nah-uh. Ain't falling for it. Try again.

Quote:

Originally posted by dmzWhere is the materialist systematic that is more than "leave me alone' and 'let me do my own thing'?

You don't write well when upset, try rephrasing things.

Are you saying that Buddhism is selfish or reclusive? It is compassionate and relies on interaction with the public. It isn't, say, the Vatican, where they live in perverse lavishness and occasionally treat the public to a free show.

Buddhist monks were some of the first to be up to their necks in corpses after the Tsunami, trying to identify them and organize the various aid/relief efforts.

You don't see too many cardinals digging graves these days.

There are plenty of good Christians that do go worldwide for earthquake relief efforts, etc., but they are the stoic quiet types that also bear the burden of the ostentatious corporate landbarons that pass for the typical evangelical preacher these days. One deserves praise, the other loud rebuke.

"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...

And just to comment on w=something that was said way back when: RE: 'Reality" and Christianity . . . . in the world and not of it . . . . for millenia a central notion of Christianity is that this world is a viel of tears and a seductive misery . . .best to rise above this false world where 'the bright-one' rules and think about the other realm, this world is all illusion for a good Christian, better not fall in love with it . . .

(that Idea, in many peoples minds, is the true root of Western Nihilism . . . that denigration of this world by the other -invisible world . . . as well as by Pure-Reason . . . a two pronged medley that sounds like impending denigration of this world . . . as well as a convenient excuse to treat it as just a bunch of stuff to be used up and spent to beter our Calvinistically-devine graced (I mean rich) selves . . . )

Excellent. One who knows how to ask and inspect and think...

"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...

Originally posted by dmz..what do you mean was? The evangelical Church is about this [holds up two fingers] close to effectively jumping right back into that gnostic crappola.

Actually I was thinking of the likes of Thomas Kempis, an Augustine monk, who wrote The Imitation of Christ . . . the kind of bok that is sprinkled with some gems, but also has you wear rocks in your shoes in denial of life and the body.

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes--Franklin Miller.

Originally posted by johnqIf you don't know what you're talking about, just admit it. Otherwise you're just removing all doubt in us of your incorrect knowledge on the subject. It's fine to not know. Just ask.

johnq, give me a break, where are you getting this? Buddhism couldn't be any plainer about the absorption into the ONE and that differentiation is basically a distraction.

Now, don't get me wrong, if you are going towards mysticism then I guess you can "go by feel' or really any sort of variation on that theme.

But for Buddism, if the meaning is to be accepted, it is the meaning of unity.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Originally posted by dmzjohnq, give me a break, where are you getting this? Buddhism couldn't be any plainer about the absorption into the ONE and that differentiation is basically a distraction.

Now, don't get me wrong, if you are going towards mysticism then I guess you can "go by feel' or really any sort of variation on that theme.

But for Buddism, if the meaning is to be accepted, it is the meaning of unity.

I was replying to "Buddhism destroys particularity by definition". Sublimation, not destruction.

Differentiation is useless because nothing is immutable. Interaction begets change which renders differentiation illusory. Nothing is changeless. Transient states are just that. Differentiating between them does no good. Go ahead if you want to.

"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...

Originally posted by segoviusWhy would God tell someone to kill his son ? what sort of person dopes that let alone God ?

And what sort of person actually plays along with it ? And is regarded as 'Holy' ?

And what if Abraham had done it ? What would be the aftermath ? Of course it would be murder (but then the OT is no stranger to murder - another clue) but what of the psychological fallout ?

1. God maybe told Abraham with that dream-message to sacrifice his son, in order to test his sincerity of faith in God and to see if Abraham deems the things in this life more important than following the orders of God or the importance of the after-life. Remember, from the perspective of God every human that dies will be recreated by Him at the end of the world anyway, and everyone of us will die anyway at some point in time. Off course God couldn't let Abraham actually kill his son, because it could set a precedent, so that later generations could start killing their first-borns for God as a ritual, but He wanted to see if Abraham would be willing to fulfill the divine order, and at the latest moment an angel was sent to stop Abraham and to tell him that he had already fulfilled the dream-face and instead of sacrificing his son, he should sacrifice the sheep the angel brought with him.
So, that seemingly crazy order fulfilled numerous purposes, it tested Abraham's as well as his son's (the son voluntarily took part in that attempted sacrifice) submission to God, and at the same time showed that God didn't want that humans get killed in his name as a sacrifice and offered a way in how humans could ritually express their connection to God, by sacrificing a sheep instead of a human.

2. True prophets have the tendency to follow God's orders as hard as they may be.

3. What if he had done it? Then it would be a jewish tradition to sacrifice the first-born-son for God at the age the son of Abraham had. Another effect would be that there would be no arabs, no prophet Muhammad and no Islam..
The aftermath for Abraham himself wouldn't be very severe, since at that time there was no stringent law-enforcement in place, no one, from the people that don't regard him as a prophet, would accuse him of anything, the people at that time would have the opinion that he had the right to kill his own children, if he wanted to since they were his possession..

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

Originally posted by groveratWhat's amazing is that so many non-religionists live perfectly happy and fulfilling lives.

I really wonder how this seemingly impossible phenomenon is explained by religionists.

I regard myself as a religiuous person, I really believe in God and the last day and the afterlife, but that doesn't automatically mean that I will therefore live a happy and fulfilling life in this life.

This life on earth is open in every direction to the faithful ones and the unbelievers. God provides for both and that's part of the test, as it makes it possible that an unbeliever becomes rich, while a believer becomes poor, etc.. The judgment, and the reward and punishment is not done on earth in this life, but in the after-life after the world has ended, if God wills.

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

Originally posted by johnqCare to explain how, say, Buddhism doesn't solve "the problem"/"answer the question" etc.?

<insert dmz's partially-intentional misconception of Buddhism here>

If you aren't believing in God, the last day, judgment day and afterlife, aka hell or paradise, anyway, and you are just seeking a sort of spiritual philosophy that transcends you a bit of the everyday-boringness and instills you with the faint feeling that you are part of some bigger harmony, then yes I guess buddhism could fulfill your need.

But for those that really believe in God, and the message that this life is just a test for our faith in Him, and that all humans will be recreated at the world's end and be judged according to their faith in Him and their deeds and then either get eternal reward in paradise or eternal punishment in hell, then Buddhism, which has a sort of laissez-faire-style towards the gods you want to adhere to, might not cut it.

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

Okay... all of your life people tell you that the Bible is the Word of God. From an MSNBC poll I saw last night, around 36% of the people in the certifiably-insane US have been telling you that each and every word of the Bible is supposed to be taken as complete, literal truth. (Even allowing for a large margin of error, since the poll wasn't a very scientific poll, the percentage is frighteningly high.)

You really find disillusionment when confronting the reality of the Bible astonishing?

If the Bible itself is such a mess, based on what other external basis of authority or evidence should one buy into your vision of God and Judgment Day and reward and punishment?

The message that God exists and the warning of the last day and the judgment is way older than the Bible, there were hundreds of thousands of prophets sent to humanity to all "people" in the world at one or the other point in time since humans existed. Most of these messages were orally preserved, and therefore over the thousands of millenias transformed, so that you see nowadays that the whole world adheres to some form of religion or the other, most of them having become polytheistic over the course.

Personally I'm attached to the authority of the Quran, as the latest and written message of God, that confirms and completes David's psalms, Moses' Thora, Jesus' gospel ...

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

Originally posted by johnqDifferentiation is useless because nothing is immutable.

The best differentiation is between life and death. If your wife/girlfriend/child/parent dies and you continue to live, you will probably find that differentiation is not useless but quite painful, except off course if you are a totally indifferent guy, then back to step 1.

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

Originally posted by NightcrawlerThe message that God exists and the warning of the last day and the judgment is way older than the Bible, there were hundreds of thousands of prophets sent to humanity to all "people" in the world at one or the other point in time since humans existed.

There have been all manner of prophets "sent" with all kinds of messages. Your point?

Quote:

Most of these messages were orally preserved, and therefore over the thousands of millenias transformed, so that you see nowadays that the whole world adheres to some form of religion or the other, most of them having become polytheistic over the course.

So, God plays the "telephone game" with us? And the important message than shines through all of the repetition and distortion doesn't denote any particular religion, just "Have some religion. It's good for you!"?

Quote:

Personally I'm attached to the authority of the Quran, as the latest and written message of God, that confirms and completes David's psalms, Moses' Thora, Jesus' gospel ...

Writing a book which "confirms" prophecies in another book... ah, such compelling evidence. In "Return of the King", in the final scene at Mount Doom, the wisdom of keeping Gollum alive is demonstrated, "confirming" the prediction of Gandalf two books earlier. Middle Earth must be real! Frodo lives!

Quote:

The best differentiation is between life and death. If your wife/girlfriend/child/parent dies and you continue to live, you will probably find that differentiation is not useless but quite painful, except off course if you are a totally indifferent guy, then back to step 1.

So the proper measure of the best and truest beliefs is the degree of comfort provided when thinking about dead people?

Originally posted by johnqI was replying to "Buddhism destroys particularity by definition". Sublimation, not destruction.

Differentiation is useless because nothing is immutable. Interaction begets change which renders differentiation illusory. Nothing is changeless. Transient states are just that. Differentiating between them does no good. Go ahead if you want to.

FINE
love you

I'm out of here, must work to make up for yesterday

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

'Fine' is not a comeback. 'Fine' says 'I do not have a response.' 'Fine' says 'I concede; I'm short on facts or it appears you've got me but I want to give the impression that I could respond if I wanted to.'

Originally posted by dmzBuddhism destroys particularity by definition. The apparent failure of Buddhism to connect with the demands of reality are there for anyone to see.

(1) Who says I'm advocating or defending Buddhism? Are you taking the fact that I haven't engaged johnq much on the subject of Buddhism as I have you and your TC as sign that I'm pro-Buddhism? The only thing this is a sign of is that johnq is less annoyingly strident about having the One True Way, and, as this thread is entitled "Letting Go of God", he's not advocating for Hanging On to God as you are.

(2) Is this an extension of your "broad brush" problem, where you've lumped everything non-TC together as Buddhism?

(3) Why should I believe that some long chain of pretzel logic, which you might wish to believe has the solidity of a mathematical proof, but which is founded on squishy words and your own hand-picked, cart-before-the-horse presumptions like a Sovereign God-based epistemology, demonstrates conclusively that Buddhism (or whatever else you're railing against at the moment) "destroys particularity"?

(4) Even if I buy your argument, why should I care? If the weather report shows that a non-particularity front is sweeping into my neighborhood tomorrow, how will I know when it hits? Will I be unable to form words or clear thoughts? Will I meld with the furniture in a non-distinct blob? Will I become overwhelmed with moral ambiguity and start kicking the dog? Will my sinuses act up?

Quote:

I can tell you why your wrong

The closest you've come to telling anyone why they're wrong is to say something like "X leads to Y", where both the connection between X and Y is debatable, and where the supposedly terrible consequence of Y looks a whole lot like nothing more than an expression of how you wish for things not to be.

Quote:

Where is the materialist systematic that is more than "leave me alone' and 'let me do my own thing'?

X = Materialism
Y = Leave me alone/Let me do my own thing

Connection between X and Y? Tenuous and debatable.

The problem with Y if it's true? You just don't find that a satisfying outcome? Is any belief system automatically falsified, or shown to be "incoherent", if it doesn't lead to a Moral Absolutes backed up by a big 'ol Hell Stick to encourage the masses to behave and play nice with each other?

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah'Fine' is not a comeback. 'Fine' says 'I do not have a response.' 'Fine' says 'I concede; I'm short on facts or it appears you've got me but I want to give the impression that I could respond if I wanted to.'

'Fine', especially in huge letters, is REALLY, REALLY ANNOYING.

love you too

Air Pistols at 30 paces?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Originally posted by shetline(1) Who says I'm advocating or defending Buddhism? Are you taking the fact that I haven't engaged johnq much on the subject of Buddhism as I have you and your TC as sign that I'm pro-Buddhism? The only thing this is a sign of is that johnq is less annoyingly strident about having the One True Way, and, as this thread is entitled "Letting Go of God", he's not advocating for Hanging On to God as you are.

(2) Is this an extension of your "broad brush" problem, where you've lumped everything non-TC together as Buddhism?

(3) Why should I believe that some long chain of pretzel logic, which you might wish to believe has the solidity of a mathematical proof, but which is founded on squishy words and your own hand-picked, cart-before-the-horse presumptions like a Sovereign God-based epistemology, demonstrates conclusively that Buddhism (or whatever else you're railing against at the moment) "destroys particularity"?

(4) Even if I buy your argument, why should I care? If the weather report shows that a non-particularity front is sweeping into my neighborhood tomorrow, how will I know when it hits? Will I be unable to form words or clear thoughts? Will I meld with the furniture in a non-distinct blob? Will I become overwhelmed with moral ambiguity and start kicking the dog? Will my sinuses act up?

The closest you've come to telling anyone why they're wrong is to say something like "X leads to Y", where both the connection between X and Y is debatable, and where the supposedly terrible consequence of Y looks a whole lot like nothing more than an expression of how you wish for things not to be.

X = Materialism
Y = Leave me alone/Let me do my own thing

Connection between X and Y? Tenuous and debatable.

The problem with Y if it's true? You just don't find that a satisfying outcome? Is any belief system automatically falsified, or shown to be "incoherent", if it doesn't lead to a Moral Absolutes backed up by a big 'ol Hell Stick to encourage the masses to behave and play nice with each other?

Shetline, the only thing I can suggest is that you go the wikipedia route and take a look at the basic propostion that guys like Sarte, Nietchzse, and that Nazi Hiedegger put forward in various forms -- they basically broke "reality" and then unplugged "reality" from "reason", etc.

Putting their thought together you get the proposition that not only are there no absolutes, even if there were, you would never know it or be able to truly express it to another person, and even if you did it would make a bit of difference.

I don't think you're going for Buddism, but there is a common theme here, running from "I am my own" to guys like Kant making it official, but IMO cutting off thier noses to spite their faces. Without God-based epistemology, you run off to Buddism, Kantian thought, Islam, etc, but in the end you end up either atomized as a person through the destruction of any overarching principles -- which basically turns your intellectual endeavors/interpersonal actions to an illusion, OR to absorption into the One or Flux, or whatever the "All is...." ends with for each religion.

but goto wiki for guys like Schaeffer, Van Til, Kant, Camus, Sartre and you should see a pattern between the apologeitc big guns on either side. Schaeffer's _Escape from reason_ is barely 100 pages, you can read it in an afternoon.

I can't do blather like I used to, I am in danger of losing work by spending WAY too much time here. I'm thinking of entering a 12-step program to cut this crap out. I'm way too contentious to be drawn in to these discussions.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Originally posted by jamacnightcrawler, please get help!!!
God alone is not goint to do it for you.

BTW what do you think about that circumsicion by sharp stone thing as a thank you gift to god...?

Why do I need help? Because I believe in God? Do you think having faith is like having a mental illness, that you want to do your best to cure? If I jump onto the bandwagon of yours and become an atheist, too, or at least a polytheist will you declare me sane?

Jamac, you really need help in learning the meaning of tolerance.

BTW, Abraham's and his sons' circumscision and the following circumscision of all jews and arabs (later becoming muslims) was the sign for the contract (I have forgotten the correct english term for it) between God and the believers in Him, what do you want me to think about it beyond that?

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

Originally posted by NightcrawlerBTW, Abraham's and his sons' circumscision and the following circumscision of all jews and arabs (later becoming muslims) was the sign for the contract (I have forgotten the correct english term for it) between God and the believers in Him, what do you want me to think about it beyond that?

Because it is just one of innumerable arbitrary rituals and myths passed down from primitive times and peoples - no different, no better.

Arbitrary in that it could have just as likely been cutting off a finger or toe, tip of the nose, ears or tongue, scarification, tattoos, piercings, clitoridectomy, or even outright human sacrifice.

Clearly the goal of circumcision is to deaden the sensitivity of the head of the penis by guaranteeing a lifetime of exposure and abrasion and dryness, so it isn't entirely arbitrary. But justifiable? Not when the alleged story is that we have free will...

The moral tenets of an external supernatural God imposed via intimidation and supernatural threats does not work. Hence the failsafe of dulling the senses. Snip snip. Imposed moderation rather than chosen. Note circumcision isn't saved for when the man is old enough to decide for himself. Remove the choice by doing it at birth. (By the way, let's not go down this "cancer/cleanliness" route. It's rubbish). Same with clitoridectomy except even more brutally. It's all about control and symbolic evidence of being one of the herd.

I am not a relativist with regard to religions, meaning I don't give them all equal weight for being valid; I give them all equal weight for likely being *invalid* - whenever they veer off from the types of rigorous inspection, investigation and observations that both Science and Buddhism tend towards.

No scheme is 100% right but at least both Science and Buddhism have built-in mechanisms for periodically changing or questioning their views based on new discoveries or questions.

"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...

Originally posted by johnqNo scheme is 100% right but at least both Science and Buddhism have built-in mechanisms for periodically changing or questioning their views based on new discoveries or questions.

Let's clear some things up.

Humans are capable of a higher (or different if you prefer) degree of consciousness than we are accustomed to using. Science is aware of this fact in many studies - Alpha waves, only using 10% of our brains etc.

Achieving a fuller consciousness has always been a goal of people throughout history and many attempts and methods have been developed to achieve it ranging from magical and mystical practices, asceticism and drugs.

In some traditions the end result is called 'enlightenment', in others 'gnosis' or whatever.

Religion is merely a deteriorated form of these attempts. Not only does it no longer work (because it is a corruption) but it denies the possibility of working or even that this was ever an aim (see any DMZ post on this issue).

Religion denies the existence of 'alternate' realities and postulates that this our everyday 'reality' is the only correct one. This is the mark of a tradition that has become corrupt.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Originally posted by shetlineThere have been all manner of prophets "sent" with all kinds of messages. Your point?

Well, you asked, if I see the Bible as distorted over the time, what authority I draw from? I said then that the Bible is not the only scripture and that prophets were sent for a long time since the first humans existed, that's all. By the way, all those prophets weren't sent with all kinds of messages but basically with the same message, namely to believe in the one and only God, the creator of the universe and all life, to pray only to him, to do good things, to help the poor, the orphans, the widows, the elderly, to respect the parents, to not steal, not kill, etc.., basically the essence that makes a civil society possible, and at the same time qualifies for eternal reward.

Quote:

Originally posted by shetlineSo, God plays the "telephone game" with us? And the important message than shines through all of the repetition and distortion doesn't denote any particular religion, just "Have some religion. It's good for you!"?

According to the Quran at least, it's only important to believe in one God, namely the creator of the universe and all life, and to commit good deeds, so that jews, christians and muslims have the same opportunity to enter paradise, despite the distortions of the Bible.

Quote:

Originally posted by shetlineWriting a book which "confirms" prophecies in another book... ah, such compelling evidence.

That was not my point, it was just a side-info, there is no proof for God's existence or proof that the Quran is God's direct message, sure there is enough hints for both, but ultimately faith is needed, otherwise you would have sure knowledge which would make the test in this life obsolete.

The nice thing about the Quran though is that it is not tampered with, it basically is identical to the version of the Quran present at the time of prophet Muhammad, and in the same arabic language, preserved both continouusly in writing and oral (learned by heart) form since then. And the Quran confirms the original messages of Moses, Abraham, Noah, Jesus etc...and promises equal opportunity for jews, christians and muslims that believe in the one God and commit good deeds.

Quote:

Originally posted by shetlineSo the proper measure of the best and truest beliefs is the degree of comfort provided when thinking about dead people?

Huh? That was a direct response to johnq, who claimed differentiation were useless and nothing immutable. I brought the example of life and death as an immutable differentiation that even he couldn't ignore, unless he were a real indifferent guy, that's all.

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

Originally posted by NightcrawlerThe nice thing about the Quran though is that it is not tampered with, it basically is identical to the version of the Quran present at the time of prophet Muhammad, and in the same arabic language, preserved both continouusly in writing and oral (learned by heart) form since then.

That may not be true - the Caliph Umar is known to have produced a definitive version. This clearly implies there were other differing versions - we also know this because we know Umar ordered that all differing versions were located and destroyed.

In a theological sense (as opposed to the literal existence of differing versions) there is also the issue of the Satanic Verses which pose a significant problem to any serious Islamic Scholar.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah'Fine' is not a comeback. 'Fine' says 'I do not have a response.' 'Fine' says 'I concede; I'm short on facts or it appears you've got me but I want to give the impression that I could respond if I wanted to.'

'Fine', especially in huge letters, is REALLY, REALLY ANNOYING.

And so typical of DMZ . . . I can't count the number of threads where exactly this has happened on one hand.

Rather than argue from a perspective of earnestly attempting to understand one-another, DMZ argues in order to confirm the specialness of his Church, to which he clings desperately, and the truthfulness of his convoluted, byzantine justifications for believing unecessary things . . .

The funny thing is is that the more I hear some people try and intellectually discuss Christianity the more I can feel comfortable saying that I simply do not believe that Jesus was the Exclusive son of God, the more I can say outloud, despite my upbringing, that I am not a Christian . . . . the whole thing becomes more and more absurd and meaningless

There are some Christians here though, who provide a good counter-argument, not through prostheletizing but through having an ethics and demeanor that is respectable . . .

anyway

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes--Franklin Miller.

Originally posted by pfflamAnd so typical of DMZ . . . I can't count the number of threads where exactly this has happened on one hand.

Rather than argue from a perspective of earnestly attempting to understand one-another, DMZ argues in order to confirm the specialness of his Church, to which he clings desperately, and the truthfulness of his convoluted, byzantine justifications for believing unecessary things . . .

The funny thing is is that the more I hear some people try and intellectually discuss Christianity the more I can feel comfortable saying that I simply do not believe that Jesus was the Exclusive son of God, the more I can say outloud, despite my upbringing, that I am not a Christian . . . . the whole thing becomes more and more absurd and meaningless

There are some Christians here though, who provide a good counter-argument, not through prostheletizing but through having an ethics and demeanor that is respectable . . .

anyway

And so typical of pfflam . . . I can't........

Oh crap, now I'm doing it.

I thought johnq and I were in the same ballpark, and felt it was time to let this go due to a COMPLETE LACK OF FREE FRELLING TIME. I'm lucky they still let me have lunch, or you wouldn't be reading this. I assumed Hassan i Sabbah was either being obtuse, egging me on, or that the 'FINNNNNE, whatevvvveeeer' reference was lost on him, or all three. But you pfflam, et tu, pfflammo?!!

Evenings and weekends people, this is too much of a time sucker.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Originally posted by dmzAnd so typical of pfflam . . . I can't........

Oh crap, now I'm doing it.

I thought johnq and I were in the same ballpark, and felt it was time to let this go due to a COMPLETE LACK OF FREE FRELLING TIME. I'm lucky they still let me have lunch, or you wouldn't be reading this. I assumed Hassan i Sabbah was either being obtuse, egging me on, or that the 'FINNNNNE, whatevvvveeeer' reference was lost on him, or all three. But you pfflam, et tu, pfflammo?!!

Evenings and weekends people, this is too much of a time sucker.

Is that'time free for frelling'? or 'free time for frelling'?

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes--Franklin Miller.

She saw a visions of Marry when she was a child, these visions led to her though her visions the discovering of a spring of water that has healed people for over 150 years, in the city of Lourdes in France.

The Catholic Church has documented the miracles of healing all this time.

Originally posted by segoviusThat may not be true - the Caliph Umar is known to have produced a definitive version. This clearly implies there were other differing versions - we also know this because we know Umar ordered that all differing versions were located and destroyed.

In a theological sense (as opposed to the literal existence of differing versions) there is also the issue of the Satanic Verses which pose a significant problem to any serious Islamic Scholar.

That's why I said "basically" the same and not exactly the same. You have to remember though that the Quran was learned by heart by numerous persons at the time of prophet Muhammad's life, so that Umar's decision to cut down the different versions of the written form of the Quran can't imply a difference in content.

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

Originally posted by johnqBecause it is just one of innumerable arbitrary rituals and myths passed down from primitive times and peoples - no different, no better.

Arbitrary in that it could have just as likely been cutting off a finger or toe, tip of the nose, ears or tongue, scarification, tattoos, piercings, clitoridectomy, or even outright human sacrifice.

Who cares, circumscision was an archaic way of signing up for the jews to God in archaic times in a world full of active polytheists. Sure, jews and major parts of muslims still do it today out of tradition to make a connection to the past, but it's not necessary anymore. As far as I know most christians for example are not circumscised and have replaced it through baptisation.

Quote:

Originally posted by johnqThe moral tenets of an external supernatural God imposed via intimidation and supernatural threats does not work. Hence the failsafe of dulling the senses. Snip snip. Imposed moderation rather than chosen. Note circumcision isn't saved for when the man is old enough to decide for himself. Remove the choice by doing it at birth. (By the way, let's not go down this "cancer/cleanliness" route. It's rubbish). Same with clitoridectomy except even more brutally. It's all about control and symbolic evidence of being one of the herd.

Yes, it was a symbolic evidence of being one of the herd, which was needed in those archeic times, when polytheism was abundant and in power and monotheism restarted in a small way with the first jews after Abraham.

But when you really think that circumscision means that the people doing it are forced into their faith and religion, then you are wrong. I know a lot of people that were circumscised and have still become unbelievers and I know a lot of people that weren't circumscised and have nonetheless become religious and faithful.

Quote:

Originally posted by johnqI am not a relativist with regard to religions, meaning I don't give them all equal weight for being valid; I give them all equal weight for likely being *invalid* - whenever they veer off from the types of rigorous inspection, investigation and observations that both Science and Buddhism tend towards.

Faith is not science, science is about sure knowledge, but if you ever achieve to find sure knowledge about God and the beyond, then faith is obsolete and the test is over.

Science is all about the "how", while religion/philosophy is about the "why". For me personally I need both to appreciate God's work.

Quote:

Originally posted by johnqNo scheme is 100% right but at least both Science and Buddhism have built-in mechanisms for periodically changing or questioning their views based on new discoveries or questions.

Like I already said, I'm all for science, it's great and the Quran actually calls humans to use the brain, to travel the world, to discover history, nature, to read, to gain knowledge...

but it's still a whole other category than religion and faith in God.

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?